(01-21-2017 08:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (01-20-2017 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (01-20-2017 05:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The federal nature of our republic gives us the possibility of providing a guaranteed income and transferring the other welfare programs to the states, who could pick and choose which to keep.
But one side likes the idea of 50 different laboratories, while the other strangely persists in trying to consistently crater the idea and ideals embodied by the 10th amendment.
Interestingly the anti-side consistently conflates the verbalization of support of the 10th amendment with "racists".... and directly equates the paraphrase of that (states rights) with "racists". Funny how that happens......
You're right that generally liberals prefer a more federal approach to certain laws, and vice versa for Republicans. But let's continue down this divisive partisan path you're starting.
Right wingers say they're all for local control, until that local control goes against their interests. Just look at the high profile steps both North Carolina and Texas have taken to curb the rules that individual cities want to put in place. After Denton voted to ban fracking in their city limits, the state legislature, controlled by right wingers, decided to override a communities ability to govern themselves as they see fit. And in North Carolina, the right wing bathroom bill that has stripped jobs and revenue from the state was only done because rightwingers couldn't help but try to override another local bill that didn't fit with their view of how people should legislate their naughty bits.
I really wish that this forum would be more about discussion of ideas and the merits of them, or about current events in politics, than petty and divisive arguments that paint the "others" we disagree with, with a very large brush. Responses like yours and mine are the problem.
And by the way, the reason states' rights often gets conflated with racism (too frequently nowadays) is because of history. You do realize that states' rights was the leading argument behind Jim Crow laws remaining legal, right?
Actually you have conflated "local control" with "state's rights". "Local control" is not the source of powers that went into the formulation of the Constitution nor that contemplated for protection of by the 10th amendment.
The entire scope of the Constitution is the definition of both the pre-existing sovereign powers that were melded into the current Federal system, the limits of that power, and the reservation and limitation of that power.
Denton has every right to pass a anti-ban fracking, but the higher sovereign defined has the ability to supercede, much as the Texas Legislature decided to do. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution invokes much of the same pecking order vis a vis the Feds to the states, subject to the limitations of power stated in the Constitution.
Im tired of being labeled a "racist" for actually believing in the limitations of the US Constitution on the powers of the 50 individual sovereigns.
Your construct of the Denton situation has no bearing on the issue whatsoever, as there is no limitation in the Texas Constitution for the Texas Legislature to do what they did.
As for slavery, for the original states that entered slavery (I hate to tell you) *was* a matter of an individual sovereign's power to decide. There was no limitation on the power of an individual state entering into the grand agreement on whether of not to have this system in place -- as for entering states, the sovereign that parceled out and created the incoming state sovereignty (the US Federal Sovereign) deigned whether the state had a choice or not. Most that had the choice opted to implement the system under the parceled out power, as those that were decided to be non-slave *did not* have that option under their creation.
So yes, slavery was a state's rights creation. To label someone in the present day as a racist using the term is utterly stupid, and shows a reverse ignoramce as bad as they wish to portray (imo).
Most conservatives believe in the actual limitation of powers in the Constitution. If Texas or California wish to screw themselves in the arena reserved for them (i.e. California being brain dead in their pension system), so be it.
It is almost always the progressive side that wishes to corral state governments with overarching federal decrees. And also the progressive side that has learned to besmirch the move to limit Federal power with the overall "you're racist" screech by conflating the term in that way.
Yes your examples of Texas and North Carolina are examples of a higher sovereign stepping in, but the sovereign powers there dont have the specific limitation on them that the Federal intervention into state powers ever implicates. A valiant attempt, but the concepts of local control and states rights are vastly different in a legal sense.
As for the Jim Crow, yes the southern states did use that pretext in defiance of the 14th and 15th amendments. To use the term "states rights" to capture that indicia of racism would be much like one terming progressives "communists" or "nazis" (capturing the social agendas of the national socialist nanny state) for their beliefs in progressivism and its nascent roots of philosophy. In that manner it would be used as a perjorative. Thank you for defense of those perjoratives in a somewhat flawed manner.
And interesting that you portray the issue of parceling out and sources of sovereign power as a "divisive partisan issue". The sources of government power, which sovereign can execute using those powers, and the limitations at each sovereign are somewhat key to a functioning federal system. But somehow it is a "divisive partisan issue"..... wouldnt you state that characterization is somewhat telling?